From the perspective of the history of philosophy, evolutionary theory raises some very fundamental questions indeed.
Indeed yes, but they won’t be asked at this conference. Here are some questions that won’t be asked:
1. Can a strictly naturalistic research program enjoy guarantees of completeness and realism?
2. Is a strictly naturalistic approach required for legitimate science? If so, can the resulting explanations be objective facts?
3. Is it serendipity that the strictly naturalistic origin of life narrative is (i) required for science and (ii) a fact?
4. Are contrastive approaches to theory evaluation, such as likelihood ratios, undermined by the problem of unconceived alternatives?
5. Does the infinite regress make design impossible? Non scientific? Both? If so, does this mandate evolution as is claimed?
6. Would an all-good, all-powerful, all-knowledgeable creator never intend this world as evolutionists claim?
7. Can atheists make metaphysical assertions, such as that god would never create this world, without contradicting themselves?
How can one be a naturalist after Darwin? On the ancient teleological naturalist picture, namely that of Aristotle, the goal of the study of the physical world, organic and inorganic, was to reveal the ultimate purposes of things. This teleological world-view was then coupled with the belief in a unified deity, and resulted in the belief that the study of the physical world offers a window into the mind of God.
Darwin completed a revolution in the sciences that was begun by Galileo. Galileo’s mathematization of physics removed Aristotelean final causes from the inorganic part of the natural world. Darwin’s theory of natural selection removed those final causes from the organic part of the natural world as well. The implications of such a radical shift in world-view are still vague, especially the implications concerning metaphysical commitments.
But the implications of Darwin’s theory on metaphysics are uncannily similar to the pre Darwin metaphysics from which Darwin argued. Today we conclude that it is a greater god who does not intervene, but this is precisely what Leibniz and others vigorously argued. Shouldn’t the metaphysical inputs be considered as well as the metaphysical outputs?
Given all the advances in science, it seems that we cannot answer the traditional philosophical problems concerning consciousness, freedom or even religion but through this new Darwinian naturalist lens.
But the naturalist lens was crafted from philosophical and theological concerns, long before Darwin got in a boat and went anywhere. Religion drives science, and it matters (but don’t tell the philosophers).
Hunter:
ReplyDeleteWould an all-good, all-powerful, all-knowledgeable creator never intend this world as evolutionists claim?
I had decided to stop commenting on this forum for reasons that I don't want to go into but I felt that this particular question should be answered differently than I think Hunter would. Hunter apparently believes in an omnipotent and omniscient Christian God. I, too, am a Christian and yet, I think that omniscience is a silly concept that does the ID and creationist side a great deal of harm. Indeed, the evolutionists frequently point to it as an example of the absurdity of the ID camp. They are wrong, of course, since ID has nothing to do with omniscience or the existence of an omniscient deity. But it is an effective weapon in their hands, one that causes harm to the ID side of the debate and one that they are not about to lay down any time soon.
I think it is time to put this notion to rest once and for all. There can be no such thing as an omniscient designer because a designer, by definition, does not know how a design will look like when it is done or whether or not it will be successful. Design involves trying and to testing things out. Design and omniscience do not mix. As a Christian, I see nothing in my understanding of the Bible that could make me conclude that the Christian God is omniscient. Indeed, it was only after everything was designed and implemented that the Elohim (the alien masters who created life on earth) took a look back and said to themselves, "it is very good". Note that they did not say it was perfect, just very good.
What omniscient God would need to make such a remark? Omniscience implies that the deity would know that a design is good long before designing it. Which takes us back to the initial contradiction between design and omniscience. And besides, if you know everything, everything is in your mind and there is no need to create anything. The more I think about omniscience, the more I think it is of the devil. It is an evil meme, a stumbling block for many would be Christians.
Just saying.
Cornelius,
ReplyDelete7. Can atheists make metaphysical assertions, such as that god would never create this world, without contradicting themselves?
Sure:
Atheist statement: There are no gods. If there was a god g1 with the abilities and intentions to make x (and where the existence of g1 leads us to expect x) and we find z then it follows that g1 does/did not exist. If there was a god g2 with the abilities and intentions to make y (and where the existence of g2 leads us to expect y) and we find z then it follows that g2 does/did not exist.
Unless, of course, there is a god g3 that creates z after g1 created x (or modifies x to make z) just for the hell of it...
Cornelius,
ReplyDelete4. Are contrastive approaches to theory evaluation, such as likelihood ratios, undermined by the problem of unconceived alternatives?
Why don't YOU expand on this?
Louis Savain: As a Christian, I see nothing in my understanding of the Bible that could make me conclude that the Christian God is omniscient.
ReplyDeleteRev 1.8: I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.
Isa 46.10: I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say: My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please.
Cornelius Hunter: 1. Can a strictly naturalistic research program enjoy guarantees of completeness and realism?
ReplyDeleteNo.
Cornelius Hunter: 2. Is a strictly naturalistic approach required for legitimate science? If so, can the resulting explanations be objective facts?
If, by naturalistic, you mean contrasting to supernaturalism, then the distinction is not always clearly drawn. Science excludes extraneous entities, or entities without clear empirical implications.
6. Would an all-good, all-powerful, all-knowledgeable creator never intend this world as evolutionists claim?
ReplyDeleteWho made this theological claim in the primary biological literature?
Zachriel said, "Science excludes extraneous entities, or entities without clear empirical implications."
ReplyDelete---
Yes, we are begging evolutionists to stick to real science. Evolutionists are comfortable with crediting nature with powers and abilities that are not empirical or realistic. Such is the stuff of superstition. Using buzz words from their rhetorical toolkit evolutionists offer up smokescreens that has no real explanatory value.
Evolution is a superstition based philosophy of interpreting data and by crediting nature with unrealistic powers.
Superstition: a : a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation b : an irrational (Webster)
ReplyDeleteYep, that pretty much covers evolution.
Tedford the Idiot said...
ReplyDeleteSuperstition: a : a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation b : an irrational (Webster)
Yep, that pretty much covers evolution.
Hey Tedford, did you contact NASA yet and let them know that the genetic algorithms they've been successfully using for the last 10 years are impossible to get complex designs from?
Neal Tedford: Evolutionists are comfortable with crediting nature with powers and abilities that are not empirical or realistic.
ReplyDeleteVariation is observed. Fecundity is observed. Natural selection is observed. Divergence is observed. The evidence of a history of branching divergence is observed.
Savain said, "because a designer, by definition, does not know how a design will look like when it is done or whether or not it will be successful"
ReplyDelete--
I think that you are unnecessarily straining and narrowing the definition of design.
In IT and engineering your idea of design is usually true. They have the planning phase, design phase, testing phase, etc. It's not unusual to have to redesign or rework parts of the project.
But you must consider that a skilled and experienced artist or builder does indeed, at least sometimes, know what something will look like and that it will be successful.
DESIGN: to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan.
The definition of design does not necessarily mean that the project is unclear and has to be reworked, etc.
The Bible says that in the beginning was the Word (Greek Logos). The Greek Logos is a thought or plan that is expressed. God had a plan before the world was created and then he expressed that plan.
Indeed, it was only after everything was designed and implemented that the Elohim (the alien masters who created life on earth) took a look back and said to themselves, "it is very good". Note that they did not say it was perfect, just very good.
ReplyDeleteGiven that your view of God is more physical, to the extent that we understand the physical, it's little wonder that you disagree with Darwinism. Darwinism arose based on a theology similar to that of the old priests who thought that physical things were unclean and that God touching physical reality would be an abomination. Little wonder that cold toads of this sort had trouble with the idea of God incarnate. After all, the carnal may as well be dirt, which is dirty and unclean.
As far as omniscience goes perhaps we cannot understand it in our degenerate languages. There are some hints as to what a transcendent perspective would look like. In fact, many scientists seem to seek a science that is "omni-" as far as this universe goes. If we can think of it and seek it even given our rather ridiculous state of being then why couldn't aliens/angels and ultimately God have a better understanding? It would be more likely that the problem is one of communication, like you trying to explain to a dog not to go to the bathroom in the house and not one of actual contradiction. Charlatans abound and many people like to play pretend about such things but that would be why people "seeing the light" might have their brains fried a bit and would "speak in tongues."
A short story on omniscience....
ReplyDeleteOnce upon a time there was an Artist who could draw other artists into his pictures, some to draw some things for him and even some who drew some for themselves too. So he drew an apprentice in his own image.
His new student asked him about a piece of art that he was working on, "What is it going to be?"
"It’s a picture about good and evil, right and wrong."
"How can you draw a picture about wrong that is right?"
"Whatever I draw is right, even that which I let look wrong to those I draw to observe it so. It's something in the lighting and my drawing, you see. I will not explain further until the picture is complete. Come close little one, so that I may ask you a question. Now, why do you suppose I would draw you to ask me annoying questions when I'm trying to work?"
"Well, I suppose...I, uh, eh, I don't know why! But it seems to me that you must know all about your own art. Say, why don't you just draw me to stop it? Huh, huh?"
The Artist turned to look at the little fellow staring up at him from his side, sighed, then said, "What you're drawing me to do is going to hurt you more than it hurts me."
"Uh, wait a minute..." the little fellow looked back at the painting, "I suppose I can wait until the picture is complete."
"Very well, and besides the answer does not exist yet in any language that you can understand. You see, I've not drawn you to understand it yet. But perhaps you can think of it in this way as I work, making a picture about good and evil consists of drawing the line someplace."
As the artist spoke he drew a line, as he did the little beings that he had drawn into his picture murmured among themselves, "Why are things this way, rather than that? I can think of things my way and want them to be so, so why should they not be my way?"
The student commented, "Say, they are a little like me in that way! So I suppose their next question about what will be would be why don't you just take their will away?"
"Only I know, as I know all of my own art. Yet I would think that some of the answers about the will would be rather obvious, if you will."
"It seems an odd decision to me."
"Yes, I knew you would say that."
"Ah, but what if I knew you knew? See how my knowledge increases to approach your own!"
The Master Artist just glanced at the little fellow and kept working on the picture. So his student asked, "Well...can you draw me to have some of your knowledge?" and the Artist answered, "For now you do not even have the symbols, imagery in your head or the language to think many of my type of thoughts, so some of the best truths about my art and this picture must and will remain ineffable and paradoxical to you. That is my will. If you are willing to learn how my will must be done in all of my pictures then I will naturally draw you to have more knowledge of my own nature."
"Naturally....that seems logical to me."
"Yes, of course, I knew it would. After all, I just drew you to think so."
The little fellow just sighed at that, and thought that he might have heard the Artist chuckle as he did.
God had a plan before the world was created and then he expressed that plan.
ReplyDeleteYeah, God probably had a plan "before" He created time.
Variation is observed. Fecundity is observed. Natural selection is observed. Divergence is observed. The evidence of a history of branching divergence is observed.
ReplyDeleteIdiocy is observed. Fraud is observed. Arrogance is observed. Censorship is observed. The evidence of a proto-Nazi history is observed.
And yet biologists apparently want others to believe that their forms of pseudo-science are unquestionable and their creation myths true.
CH: 1. Indeed yes, but they won’t be asked at this conference. Here are some questions that won’t be asked:
ReplyDeleteNor can these individuals present answers to these questions here. Apparently, you're not interested in knowing what these individuals really think. You'd rather make assumptions on their behalf knowing they cannot respond.
On the other hand, when we attempt to take your claims seriously, in that we assume they are true in reality and that all observations should conform to them, we notice an implied theory. However, rather than simply assume you actually hold these beliefs, we give you the opportunity to clarify your positions by asking direct questions, which you refuse to answer.
So, exactly what do you expect us to make of this behavior?
For example, it would seem that we agree that, at a minimum, random mutations effect the fitness of species in a neutral or detrimental way. After all, this is part of the argument you've used here on your block. Right?
So, for the same of argument, let's assume this is true, in reality, and that a designer did is true in reality as well, which appears to be consist with your claims, if we attempt to take them seriously.
As such, is the fact that human beings exist in the less than 2% that survived the result of an intelligent designer or was it the result of natural processes?
If the latter, than evolutionary processes have had a overwhelming impact on speciation. It's unclear how you could say what we observed to day was "designed" If the the former, then this designer must have directly manipulated evolutionary processes or compensated for their effect to ensure human beings kept their designed features and did not go extinct.
In other words, regardless of which you choose, random mutation and natural selection played a significant part in speciation, at a minimum. Even if only to be manipulated or compensated for by a designer.
Of course, you could try to escape this by denying that random mutations occur at all. Or by denying that random mutations can be neutral or detrimental depending on the environment. Or by deny that mildly detrimental mutations could eventually put a species at a significant disadvantage at some future date.
But we've already observed these things as well.
So, when we attempt to take your claim of design seriously, in that we assume it happened, in reality, we find evolutionary processes still must, at a minimum, have play a significant role.
Yet, you appear evasive on this issue as well. Again, it's unclear what you expect us to make of your claims when even you refuse to take them seriously.
CH: 1. Can a strictly naturalistic research program enjoy guarantees of completeness and realism?
ReplyDeleteAs apposed to what alternative? Please be specific. When will you be disclosing your positions on completeness as a professing Christian?
CH: 2. Is a strictly naturalistic approach required for legitimate science? If so, can the resulting explanations be objective facts?
One cannot explain anything in without actually presenting an explanation. That some particular state of affairs may exist in reality is not an explanation. This is naive empiricism.
CH: Is it serendipity that the strictly naturalistic origin of life narrative is (i) required for science and (ii) a fact?
Unless accepting realism is conditional depending on the subject matter, No.
CH: 4. Are contrastive approaches to theory evaluation, such as likelihood ratios, undermined by the problem of un-conceived alternatives?
An un-conceived explanation cannot explain anything in particular by nature of being un-conceived. Un-conceived explanations are indefensible as explanations of phenomena.
CH: 5. Does the infinite regress make design impossible? Non scientific? Both? If so, does this mandate evolution as is claimed?
We discard Intelligent design as an explanation because it fails to explain the biological complexity we observe. That's just what the designer must have wanted.
CH: Would an all-good, all-powerful, all-knowledgeable creator never intend this world as evolutionists claim?
How do we know the big grey rock in my back yard choose to act like all the other rocks if it were sentient? Who's to say it would interact with others as sentient begins do?
If an nonmaterial designer can be sentient without requiring a nervous system, who's to say the big grey rock in my back yard needs a nervous system to be sentient?
It's unclear why your intelligent designer represents metaphysics, but the big grey rock in my back yard does not. It's unclear why human reasoning and problem can be applied in the case of the big gray rock in my back yard, but not in the case of your intelligent designer.
When should we expect you to disclose how you differentiate between the two?
CH: 7. Can atheists make metaphysical assertions, such as that god would never create this world, without contradicting themselves?
Translated: Can atheists use human reasoning and problem solving to reach conclusions, such as that god would never create this world, without contradicting themselves?
Yes.
When will you substantiate your underlying claim of a boundary where human reasoning and problem solving cannot pass?
Scott: When will you substantiate your underlying claim of a boundary where human reasoning and problem solving cannot pass?
ReplyDeleteOf course, if you deny that "metaphysics" represents an underlying claim of boundary where human reasoning and problem solving cannot pass then, by all means, please tell us what does this claim represent other than an assertion?
Un-conceved explanations are not accounted for in all fields and all subjects - including natural un-conceved explanations. What's so special about the biological complexity we observe?
If the supernatural doesn't represent a claim of boundary where human reasoning and problem solving cannot pass, then why is it any more of a problem than any other un-concieved explanation?
Why is this not merely hand waving?
mynym said...
ReplyDeleteIdiocy is observed. Fraud is observed. Arrogance is observed. Censorship is observed. The evidence of a proto-Nazi history is observed.
Spot on description of the Intelligent Design Creation political movement.
And yet biologists apparently want others to believe that their forms of pseudo-science are unquestionable and their creation myths true.
Question all you want. Just do it with honest appraisals of the scientific evidence, ALL of it and not just cherry-picked snippets. Do it without empty blustering rhetorical attacks based on your scientific ignorance and Fundamentalist religious beliefs. Provide positive evidence for any alternatives you wish to hypothesize.
It's that positive evidence part you IDCers always forget.
Scott, the skepticism and debate about evolution has never been about whether or not some things have changed over time. The debate is about universal common descent. Evolutionist are fond of pointing to robust and bigger tomatoes and finch beaks as somehow settling UCD. That's the problem.
ReplyDeleteLike when Zachriel talks about all the things that are observed. The untold details of profound exaggeration and extrapolation are the problems. Evolutionists seem to go from A to Z without feeling the need to mention much of the rest of the alphabet.
Neal Tedford: The debate is about universal common descent.
ReplyDeleteAnd to understand that, you have to understand the nested hierarchy, including the how and whys of exceptions to the nested hierarchy.
Neal Tedford: Evolutionist are fond of pointing to robust and bigger tomatoes and finch beaks as somehow settling UCD.
Those phenomena speak to mechanisms of evolution. Then there are mechanisms of divergence, such as speciation. Then the overall historical pattern, which forms a strong signal of a nested hierarchy. These mechanisms, and others, are important to understand the observed biological patterns.
Louis Savain:
ReplyDelete===
CH: Would an all-good, all-powerful, all-knowledgeable creator never intend this world as evolutionists claim?
I had decided to stop commenting on this forum for reasons that I don't want to go into but I felt that this particular question should be answered differently than I think Hunter would. Hunter apparently believes in an omnipotent and omniscient Christian God. ... I think it is time to put this notion to rest once and for all.
===
What you believe about the nature and attributes of god is not relevant. I'm not saying what you believe is not important, I'm simply saying that the historical problem of evil--which is important in evolutionary thought--is based on the all-good, all-powerful, all-knowledgeable view of the creator. PZ Myers, Coyne, Darwin, Kant, Leibniz, etc., claim that nature must have arisen on its own based on their religious views. If you don't agree with their religious beliefs, then fine, but that doesn't change their argument.
Hawks:
ReplyDelete===
If there was a god g1 with the abilities and intentions to make x ...
===
You glossed over the question. Here it is again:
###
7. Can atheists make metaphysical assertions, such as that god would never create this world, without contradicting themselves?
###
True or False or Maybe?
ReplyDeleteI hold a speck the size of a grain of sand that will grow into a full size operational Bugatti Veyron 16.4 exotic sports car if sheltered and given the proper materials to ingest. The speck is just a blob of goo I took from a warm little pond. It is obvious that no intelligence was required to form the speck.
Nonsense. Yes. Everyone knows that can't happen, Bugatti Venyrons are descended from Volkswagons.
Hawks:
ReplyDelete===
4. Are contrastive approaches to theory evaluation, such as likelihood ratios, undermined by the problem of unconceived alternatives?
Why don't YOU expand on this?
===
Contrastive approaches evaluate the theory in question by comparing it to another theory (which is thought to be the alternative). So you can arrive at a high rating for your theory if the other theory doesn't explain the data well. But your triumphant conclusions, though they look great, depend on the underlying way you have framed the problem. IOW, you have decided what the alternative is, but you don't know there aren't other alternatives.
Scott:
ReplyDelete===
Nor can these individuals present answers to these questions here.
===
Why not?
Cornelius Hunter said...
ReplyDeleteHawks:
===
4. Are contrastive approaches to theory evaluation, such as likelihood ratios, undermined by the problem of unconceived alternatives?
Why don't YOU expand on this?
===
Contrastive approaches evaluate the theory in question by comparing it to another theory (which is thought to be the alternative). So you can arrive at a high rating for your theory if the other theory doesn't explain the data well. But your triumphant conclusions, though they look great, depend on the underlying way you have framed the problem. IOW, you have decided what the alternative is, but you don't know there aren't other alternatives.
In other words you're saying this guy's reasoning is fatally flawed:
Pedant: "By the same token, If you believe that X must not have evolved, are you going to conclude that it must have been created by a supernatural process?"
===
Cornelius Hunter: "Sure."
Got it.
Neal: Evolutionist are fond of pointing to robust and bigger tomatoes and finch beaks as somehow settling UCD. That's the problem.
ReplyDeleteNeal,
Of course you find this problematic. This is obvious. What's in question here is *why* you find it problematic. The explanation you keep providing doesn't add up.
When we unpack this line of argument, we're left with a claim that the biological complexity we observe cannot be explained with human reasoning and problem solving.
So, to rephrase you comment..
Evolutionist are fond of using human reasoning an problem solving to explain the biological complexity we observe using UCD. That's the problem.
At which point, it's your burden to explain why the use of human reasoning an problem solving stops working. Why does such a boundary exist at all, let alone here?
7. Can atheists make metaphysical assertions, such as that god would never create this world, without contradicting themselves?
ReplyDeleteYes, if they are presented with a set of God's attributes, then they can evaluate the evidence in light of these attributes. However, the distinction is that they would be making assertions about somebody else's metaphysics, not their own.
In other words, if you tell me that the nature of God is "X", I'm free to assert that the evidence does or does not support the existence of such a god. I don't have to believe or disbelieve in this god; the metaphysics aren't mine, I'm evaluating a metaphysical proposition made by another.
Scott: Nor can these individuals present answers to these questions here.
ReplyDeleteCH: Why not?
Given you've posed the question here, rather than contact them directly, the reason seems obvious.
Or did you actual send them your questions so they could respond?
Lois Savain: "There can be no such thing as an omniscient designer because a designer, by definition, does not know how a design will look like when it is done or whether or not it will be successful."
ReplyDeleteLouis, I happen to be a designer, and the reason I have the ability to design is because I do know what the design will look like when it is done. The hallmark of a good graphic designer is that they will know precisely what the finished design will look like, before they start. They simply use tools to execute the design. An industrial designer who had no idea if his designs would work until after they were manufactured would not be employed for long. (of course prototypes are tested; but this is mainly to work out kinks, rarely to see if the concept will work at all) There is absolutely nothing in the definition of 'designer' that requires not knowing what the final product will look like.
Norm Olsen:
ReplyDelete===
7. Can atheists make metaphysical assertions, such as that god would never create this world, without contradicting themselves?
Yes, if they are presented with a set of God's attributes, then they can evaluate the evidence in light of these attributes. However, the distinction is that they would be making assertions about somebody else's metaphysics, not their own.
In other words, if you tell me that the nature of God is "X", I'm free to assert that the evidence does or does not support the existence of such a god. I don't have to believe or disbelieve in this god; the metaphysics aren't mine, I'm evaluating a metaphysical proposition made by another.
===
So your answer is "no," atheists cannot make metaphysical assertions without contradicting themselves?
Cornelius:
ReplyDeleteSo your answer is "no," atheists cannot make metaphysical assertions without contradicting themselves?
Ha, ha! Correct, they can't make metaphysical claims about God, they can only evaluate the metaphysical claims about God made by others.
CH: But your triumphant conclusions, though they look great, depend on the underlying way you have framed the problem.
ReplyDeleteCornelius,
We have no choice but to frame problems. This is because empirical observations on their own are insufficient to explain anything. All observations are theory laden. We must connect each observation via theory. Otherwise, each observation could have an infinite number of interpretations.
For example, each instance of phenomena we attribute to gravity could have a completely different cause depending on time, space or a combination of the two. Gravitational theory connects these observations under the assumption that they all represent the same underlying cause. In fact, before Newton we didn't make the connection. Observations were thought to be different. It's only when we framed the observations did they have a particular meaning.
CH: IOW, you have decided what the alternative is, but you don't know there aren't other alternatives.
Exactly how can one explain anything in particular using an un-conceived explanation? You might claim we cannot rule out some state of affairs in reality, but this doesn't represent an explanation. It's a empirical mistake. As such, both are indefensible as explanations of anything in particular.
Scott:
ReplyDelete"We have no choice but to frame problems."
And do we also have no choice but to cover over our religious assumptions, and misrepresent how the empirical evidence bears on the theory (even if we think the theory is the best there is)?
Norm Olsen:
ReplyDelete===
Ha, ha! Correct, they can't make metaphysical claims about God, they can only evaluate the metaphysical claims about God made by others.
===
OK. And when evolutionists say a sensible god would not have created the patterns we find in biology, they are making a metaphysical claim about God, agreed?
Cornelius:
ReplyDeleteOK. And when evolutionists say a sensible god would not have created the patterns we find in biology, they are making a metaphysical claim about God, agreed?
No, how so? I interpret such a statement as:
"If there exists a god and if this god is sensible then we should not see the patterns that we find in biology."
Or to put it more in the vernacular:
"If you believe that this world was created by a sensible god, why are the patterns we find in biology so nonsensical?"
In other words, such statements are implicit responses to the metaphysical claims of others, not metaphysical claims in themselves.
When an "evolutionist " refers to a "sensible god," she may well be referring to someone else's ideas about a god.
ReplyDeleteAn atheist says, "I don't believe in your god." How is that different from a person saying "I don't like pineapple on my pizza."?
What the atheist is saying is that in her opinion there is no evidence for any gods. Both are statements of opinion. Opinion is not necessarily belief in the strong sense of belief, as in religious belief.
And what Norm Olsen said while I was typing.
ReplyDeleteDerrick Childress:
ReplyDeleteLouis, I happen to be a designer, and the reason I have the ability to design is because I do know what the design will look like when it is done.
I disagree. Unless the design is very simple, you may only know what you want the final design to look like. What it turns out in the end is usually a different matter. More often than not, in complex designs, it is impossible to know the final result beforehand because the dependencies are too complex. This is why engineers run simulations.
As an aside, the super advanced Elohim (the powerful alien designers of the book of Genesis) had no idea that man would turn bad. They even professed regret of having created them. I don't think anybody in their right mind would consider regret to be a mark of omniscience. The whole Christian concept of testing the faith of individuals makes no sense if the Christian God is omniscient, does it?
Let me add that the idea of omniscience or omnipotence is really based on the pseudoscientific (or shall I say, evil) concept of infinity. As anybody with one thousandth the professed intelligence of a PZ Myers or a Richard Dawkins should know, infinity is an absurd concept. It's not even wrong, as Wolfgang Pauli would say.
Norm Olsen:
ReplyDelete===
No, how so? I interpret such a statement as:
"If there exists a god and if this god is sensible then we should not see the patterns that we find in biology."
===
Well this entails criteria for "sensible" that don't come from science. Are parasites, or aching backs, or wasted pollen, not "sensible"? It depends on the definition of sensible.
To give you more to work with, perhaps we should switch to a more concrete formulation, namely, the POE:
1. If god is all good, all knowing, all powerful, then there would be no evil.
2. There is evil.
3. Therefore, there is a problem with the idea that god created the world, or that god is all good, all knowing, all powerful.
Do you see the metaphysics in #1?
===
In other words, such statements are implicit responses to the metaphysical claims of others, not metaphysical claims in themselves.
===
No, these are metaphysical claims of evolutionists. "God would never create the mosquito, or plants that waste pollen, etc" is not a typical claim of theists.
Cornelius:
ReplyDeleteWhat you believe about the nature and attributes of god is not relevant. I'm not saying what you believe is not important, I'm simply saying that the historical problem of evil--which is important in evolutionary thought--is based on the all-good, all-powerful, all-knowledgeable view of the creator. PZ Myers, Coyne, Darwin, Kant, Leibniz, etc., claim that nature must have arisen on its own based on their religious views. If you don't agree with their religious beliefs, then fine, but that doesn't change their argument.
Certainly, but the question you asked is:
CH: Would an all-good, all-powerful, all-knowledgeable creator never intend this world as evolutionists claim?
And the answer is yes. It is a correct claim even if it is a lame strawman that has nothing to do with whether or not the world was designed and created. Their conclusions are wrong for this reason.
Louis Savain:
ReplyDelete===
CH: Would an all-good, all-powerful, all-knowledgeable creator never intend this world as evolutionists claim?
And the answer is yes.
===
Why is that true?
Cornelius:
ReplyDeleteWhy is that true?
Because, if you are omniscient, there is no purpose in designing and creating anything. It's all in your mind. Of course, the assumption here is that everything is created with a purpose. Would an omniscient God create anything for no reason?
Again, my point is that almost all western evolutionists are fighting a strawman of their own making, the supposed all-knowledgeable, all-powerful Christian God. One does not have to be all-knowledgeable to create life on earth or even the entire universe. One only needs to be extremely knowledgeable. And, as we know, knowledge is power.
Cornelius:
ReplyDeleteNo, these are metaphysical claims of evolutionists. "God would never create the mosquito, or plants that waste pollen, etc" is not a typical claim of theists.
Nor of evolutionists. A typical claim of theists is "God is benevolent". To which a typical response by evolutionists is, "Well if God is benevolent, how do you explain the existence of mosquitos/parasites/viruses ...?"
The POE is not a problem for evolutionists, it's only a problem for theists. Let me reformulate your formulation from the perspective of the atheist/evolutionist:
1. If you believe god is all good, all knowing, all powerful, then doesn't it follow that there would be no evil?
2. Is there evil?
3. If so, there is a problem with your idea that god created the world, or that god is all good, all knowing, all powerful.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteOlsen:
ReplyDelete1. If you believe god is all good, all knowing, all powerful, then doesn't it follow that there would be no evil?
2. Is there evil?
3. If so, there is a problem with your idea that god created the world, or that god is all good, all knowing, all powerful.
As a Christian, I disagree with the fundamentalist notion that God is omniscient. I think it is a stupid concept. However, I do believe that God is indeed benevolent, i.e., good. So why is there evil in the world?
Evil is a spiritual concept, not a physical one. The Christian God, as far as I can tell, did not create the spiritual realm, only the physical universe. Man's body was created from physical matter. The human spirit that inhabits the body is eternal and it is what it is. It cannot be either created nor destroyed.
We Christians are taught that human spirits are bad. It's their nature. We are also taught that there other spiritual creatures in the universe who are bad (1/3 of the angels) and others who are good (the remaining 2/3).
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteNorm Olsen:
ReplyDelete===
1. If you believe god is all good, all knowing, all powerful, then doesn't it follow that there would be no evil?
===
Why is that?
Cornelius:
ReplyDeleteWhy is that?
Why is what? Our hypothetical atheist/evolutionist is asking our hypothetical theist if he/she believes that god is all good, all knowing, and all powerful, then does he/she also believe that there would be no evil?
In other words, the evolutionist is not saying "it follows that there should be no evil" but rather, "do you think it follows that there should be no evil?"
The distinction is here: "doesn't it follow..."
Olsen:
ReplyDeleteThe distinction is here: "doesn't it follow..."
Which is why Cornelius asked why. Why would it follow? The way you asked the question implies that you already concluded that it follows that there would be no evil if God were all-knowing, all-powerful and benevolent.
Why are you pretending that you meant something other than what you implied?
Cornelius,
ReplyDeleteYou glossed over the question. Here it is again:
Are you bemoaning the fact that I wrote something a deity would do rather than what it would not do? It doesn't change my argument very much, does it? Or are you saying that I was contradicting myself?
Cornelius,
ReplyDeleteContrastive approaches evaluate the theory in question by comparing it to another theory (which is thought to be the alternative). So you can arrive at a high rating for your theory if the other theory doesn't explain the data well. But your triumphant conclusions, though they look great, depend on the underlying way you have framed the problem. IOW, you have decided what the alternative is, but you don't know there aren't other alternatives.
Of course there are other alternatives. We know there are. But there will always be alternatives whether you use a contrastive appoach or not. Unless, of course, you claim to KNOW 100% that your theory is the correct one. Now that would be a metaphysical claim.
4. Are contrastive approaches to theory evaluation, such as likelihood ratios, undermined by the problem of unconceived alternatives?
Louis said, "As an aside, the super advanced Elohim (the powerful alien designers of the book of Genesis) had no idea that man would turn bad. They even professed regret of having created them"
ReplyDeleteFirst, the hebrew word elohim is not plural in the number of gods, but singular. Deuteronomy 6:4 "Hear, O Israel, The Lord our God [Hebrew: Elohim] is one Lord."
Isaiah 45:5 "I am the LORD, and there is none else; beside me there is no God:"
I can give you a hundred more verses, but the strongest teaching of the old testament and the Bible is that there is only one God.
Also, God knew that man would need a savior before he even created the world.
CH: 1. If god is all good, all knowing, all powerful, then there would be no evil.
ReplyDelete2. There is evil.
3. Therefore, there is a problem with the idea that god created the world, or that god is all good, all knowing, all powerful.
Do you see the metaphysics in #1?
- - - - - - -
Cornelius,
Again, I'll return to my rock analogy. If sentience in the case of rocks could result in behavior, or lack there of, which is identical to non-sentient rocks, then the term sentience in the case of rocks does not add to our explanation of the rocks behavior, or lack there of. This is because sentience in the case of a rock would be indistinguishable from any other rock does not intersects with behavior we attribute to sentience.
As such, It's not an explanation of the rocks behavior, or lack there of, but an appeal that we cannot be 100% certain such a rock does not exist.
We can say the same regarding God. If the application of the adverb "all" to goodness, knowledge and power in the case of God could result in behavior, or lack there of, which is indistinguishable from undirected evolutionary processes, then the term "all" does not add to our explanation of God's behavior, or lack there of. This is because his behavior would no longer intersect with the terms goodness, knowledge and power.
Again, this is not an explanation of God's behavior, or lack there of, but an appeal that we cannot be 100% certain that such a being might exist.
Surely, we cannot rule out that neither of these things exist. But this in no way prevents us from noting that they are non-explanations which implicitly present convoluted elaborations of other theories. As such, they are indefensible as explanations for anything in particular.
Again, In the case of the rock, sentience adds nothing to the explanation of the rocks behavior, or lack there off. However, if we take the claim of the rocks sentience seriously, in that it's true in reality and that all observations should conform to it, we note it presents an implied theory that rocks that are sentient would behave just like rocks that are not sentient, not have a nervous system, not interact with others, etc. because we observe this in parallel.
So, here we have a theory which can only be understood via another theory which it conforms to, but is also supposedly false. it's a convoluted elaboration of the theory that rocks are not sentient because they do not act in a manner that reflects sentience, lack a nervous system, etc. As such, we discard it.
We can say the same about a claim that an all good, all knowing, all powerful being that designed the biological complexity we observe.
Again, the addition of the adjective "all" adds nothing to the explanations of this beings behavior, or lack there of. However, if we take the claim seriously, in that it's true in reality and that all observations should conform to it, we note it presents an implied theory that an all good, all knowing, all powerful being would design all life to look *as if* it evolved in a natural, undirected way.
So, again, we have a theory which can only be understood via another theory which it conforms to, but is also supposedly false. It's a convoluted elaboration of evolutionary theory. As such, we discard it.
Neal,
ReplyDeleteSo exactly who or what is the LORD executing judgments on in Numbers 33:4?
For the Egyptians buried all their firstborn, which the LORD had smitten among them: upon their gods also the LORD executed judgments.
And there are plenty more where that came from.. .
http://bit.ly/hrJG2Q
Scott: "We have no choice but to frame problems."
ReplyDeleteCH: And do we also have no choice but to cover over our religious assumptions, and misrepresent how the empirical evidence bears on the theory (even if we think the theory is the best there is)?
Cornelius,
You're asking a loaded question in that it assumes conclusions about God are somehow beyond human reasoning and problem solving. Again this is something you have yet to substantiate.
Of course, if this is NOT the underlying reason why conclusions about God are unscientific, then exactly what is the reason? Please be specific.
Nor is evidence being misrepresented. Evolutionary theory is the best explanation of the biological complexity we observe. And we can know this for a fact.
Please see my comment above.
[Fifth try. In two installments, this time around]
ReplyDeleteNeal Tedford:
Louis said, "As an aside, the super advanced Elohim (the powerful alien designers of the book of Genesis) had no idea that man would turn bad. They even professed regret of having created them"
First, the hebrew word elohim is not plural in the number of gods, but singular. Deuteronomy 6:4 "Hear, O Israel, The Lord our God [Hebrew: Elohim] is one Lord."
The original Hebrew text is slightly different:
shmo ishral ieue alei·nu ieue achd
hear Israel Yahweh our Elohim Yahweh One
It is true that the plural alei-nu is used in Hebrew for 'our lord' but it is a polite gramatical form in the same sense that the French plural pronoun vous can be either a polite singular you or a plural you depending on the context.
It seems that Deuteronomy 6:4 is talking about a single entity, Yahweh. However, I don't think that this means that Yahweh necessarily has to be a single individual. Jesus clearly said that he and his father were ONE. In this light, the plural meaning of Elohim does make sense. As an aside, the verse is not saying that there is only one God. It is clearly saying that Yahweh is ONE, which has a completely different Zen-like meaning, in my opinion. The ONE in "Yahweh is ONE" not unlike the ONE in "I and the Father are ONE".
continued...
Continued from above.
ReplyDeleteNeal Tedford: I can give you a hundred more verses, but the strongest teaching of the old testament and the Bible is that there is only one God.
I disagree. Yahweh's very first commandment to the house of Israel is "You shall have no other Elohim before me." Note also that Yahweh did not tell Moses to tell Pharaoh that his Gods do not exist. In fact, Pharaoh's Gods demonstrated that they had some powers of their own.
Neal Tedford: Also, God knew that man would need a savior before he even created the world.
I doubt that. I know that someone (Paul, I believe) may have written this in one of his letters to one of his churches but neither Paul nor the Bible is my Elohim. The Bible is a tool among other tools that I use in my Christian research. I am not a fundamentalist Christian, if you know what I mean.
Sorry, I was having problems with my Google account. I had to use eightwing2002 as an alternate identity.
ReplyDeleteDarwin was a hypocrite. He lied over and over again concerning his real motives for writing Origin and all.
ReplyDelete(ref. The Darwin Myth: The life and lies of Charles Darwin)
His whole scheme was to rid science of all reference to any God. Nothing has changed huh.
This he was obliged to hide from the public. His lame brained hypothesis would otherwise not have passed in a theistic Victorian world.
The worst thing about naturalism though is as Lewis put it, "If naturalism were true then all thoughts whatever would be wholly the result of irrational causes...it cuts its own throat."
Or, as Plantinga put it, "If you believe in evolution and naturalism then you have a reason not to think your faculties are reliable."
Yet while they strangely insist that their reasoning faculties are reliable (without grounds), they continue to push the very idea which forms the basis for not believing ones faculties are reliable!
Again, naturalism cuts its own throat.
Unreal.
Darwinists today are still too blinded by their own misotheism and immunity to logic to be able to see just how foolish their inane theory really is.
Gary:
ReplyDelete"Yet while they strangely insist that their reasoning faculties are reliable (without grounds), they continue to push the very idea which forms the basis for not believing ones faculties are reliable!"
Although it's obvious that your reasoning faculties are non-existent, let's assume, arguendo, that they do exist. On what grounds do you believe they are reliable?
It always amazes me how morons like Gary here think they can undermine the scientific theory of evolution with personal attacks on Darwin. Never mind that Darwin has been dead for almost 130 years, and that the scientific evidence for the theory that bears his name has grown exponentially in depth and understanding over that time.
ReplyDeleteIt would be like someone trying to show heavier-than-air flight is impossible by claiming Wilbur and Orville Wright were evil Satan worshipers.
Gary has never been the sharpest tool in the shed, but this level of stupidity just leaves me shaking my head.
Gary said: "Or, as Plantinga put it, "If you believe in evolution and naturalism then you have a reason not to think your faculties are reliable."
ReplyDeleteYet while they strangely insist that their reasoning faculties are reliable (without grounds), they continue to push the very idea which forms the basis for not believing ones faculties are reliable!
Our faculties are certainly not perfectly reliable, I don't know of anyone who has claimed this. (examples like the Monty Hall Problem amply demonstrate this fact) That's why we need external tools, like science, to correct errant ways of thinking.
As to why our faculties could be somewhat reliable if they were shaped by evolution, that's easy: faculties that were good at accurately constructing mental models and evaluations of the environment would have a strong selection advantage over faculties that were poor at it. It's quite obvious why being able to evaluate predators, prey, potential mates, competitors, etc, in a way that was closer to being 'true' than to being 'false' would be advantageous.
My personal opinion of Plantinga is that I wouldn't be surprised if he were perpetrating a hoax on the Christian apologetics community, not unlike Alan Sokal's hoax on the journal "Social Text". I can't think of a better way to make a fool of your opponent than to get them to repeat the argument: "Evidence? Who says I need evidence? Belief in God is a properly basic belief, and therefore does not need to be backed up empirically."